Liver TumorNCT06594289
Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Pringle Method Combined With IVC Flow Limiting and Blocking Method in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Based on Non-restrictive Fluid Therapy Strategy
A study testing In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intake in people with Liver Tumor, run by Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University at 1 site in China.
Trial summary
The relevant data of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy in our hospital were collected. Based on randomization, blindness and inclusion and exclusion criteria, the patients were divided into group A (which included Pringle method + restricted fluid management + vasoactive drug use by anesthesiologists)… Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Liver Tumor
- What is being tested?
- In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intake
- Type of treatment
- Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 220 participants
- Where
- 1 siteChina
- Study dates
- 15 Sep 2024to 31 Mar 2026
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 18 to 70 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Adult, Older adult
Who may be able to join
- Preoperative Child-Pugh classification of liver function Grade A and grade B;
- No contraindications for laparoscopic hepatectomy;
- Liver diseases include: primary liver cancer, hepatic hemangioma, intrahepatic bile duct calculus, intrahepatic bile duct cell carcinoma, etc.
- Patients voluntarily participate and sign informed consent;
- According to the Ban difficulty scoring system of laparoscopic hepatectomy, patients with difficulty score of 5 or more were included; Neoplasms near the hepatic portal; Extensive hepatectomy (3 hepatic segments). Patients aged 18-70 years (including 18-70 years)
Who cannot join
- Poor liver reserve function, ICG retention rate > 15%;
- severe heart and lung diseases, unable to tolerate general anesthesia surgery;
- Previous history of liver surgery;
- More than medium amount of chest and abdominal fluid with clinical symptoms:
- hepatic encephalopathy;
- having a history of psychotropic drug abuse, unable to quit or having a history of mental disorders;
Show all 13Show fewer
- Patients who have received solid organ transplantation or bone marrow transplantation, or within 2 years before surgery
- An active autoimmune disease requiring systemic treatment has occurred;
- There is an immune deficiency disease or HIV infection;
- Those who were not considered suitable for inclusion by the researchers.
- Progression of the disease or toxic side effects or serious adverse events that the subjects could not tolerate before surgery after treatment;
- Poor patient compliance, non-cooperation, concealment, false reporting and other phenomena: others
- Cases where the principal investigator determines that the research protocol is seriously violated.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
China1 site, 1 recruiting
- Recruiting
Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University
Guangzhou, China/Guangdong
Yajin Chen, 13719006202, cyj0509@126.com
Changzhen Shang, 13711279678, shangchangzhen@139.com
About this study
The relevant data of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy in our hospital were collected. Based on randomization, blindness and inclusion and exclusion criteria, the patients were divided into group A (which included Pringle method + restricted fluid management + vasoactive drug use by anesthesiologists) and group B (which included: Pringle method +IVC flow limiting and blocking method, intraoperative fluid rehydration according to physiological requirements and expected loss, no or less vasoactive drugs used during the operation), and intraoperative and postoperative relevant indicators were compared between the two groups, such as; CVP value, fluctuation range, length of operation, time of liver amputation, total blood loss, amount of liver amputation, amount of blood transfusion, and amount of fluid perfusion. Internal environmental indicators: albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, γ-gt, total bilirubin, renal function, lactic acid, blood gas analysis (three times during the operation). Postoperative indexes: average length of stay and unplanned reoperation rate. While taking into account the safety, effectiveness and interpretability of statistical results, a new laparoscopic hepatectomy technique based on the optimized CLCVP process was constructed to control intraoperative bleeding and GDFT standardized and streamlined intervention strategy. This is not only an important innovation of the CLVCP concept, but also an important link to accelerate the implementation of laparoscopic liver resection technology in grassroots hospitals, and will significantly improve the quality of medical services, which can bring more accurate and efficient treatment programs to patients.
Read the detailed description
Overall design Research hypothesis: Based on the non-restrictive fluid management strategy (intraoperative fluid rehydration according to physiological requirements and expected loss, no or less use of vasoactive drugs during the operation) combined with Pringle method and IVC flow restriction blocking method, the method of blocking hepatic blood flow was applied to effectively control intraoperative bleeding. Reduce the degree of intraoperative anesthesiologist dependence, improve the intraoperative compatibility between surgeons and anesthesiologists, and optimize the traditional CLVCP process, so as to achieve the goal of accurate maintenance of patients' organs in functional surgery and more rapid and widespread promotion of laparoscopic liver resection technology.
Type of study: A prospective randomized controlled study will be used in this study 5.2 Research and design process 5.2.1 Study the specific implementation process A total of 220 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic partial hepatectomy were selected from our hospital. All patients and their families knowingly and voluntarily signed informed consent before enrollment. On the basis of randomization and inclusion and exclusion criteria, the patients were divided into group A (110 cases) (Pringle method + restricted fluid management + use of vasoactive drugs by anesthesiologists) and group B (110 cases) (Pringle method +IVC flow restriction blocking + open fluid intake during the operation, and no/less use of vasoactive drugs during the operation). Intraoperative and postoperative related indexes were compared between the two groups, such as; CVP value, duration, fluctuation range, length of operation, time of liver amputation, total blood loss, amount of liver amputation, amount of blood transfusion, amount of liquid perfusion, three blood gas analysis during the operation, blood glucose, and dosage of vasoactive drugs. 3 days after operation: albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-GT, total bilirubin, renal function, lactic acid and other related indexes. Postoperative hospital stay (d), tracheal intubation and extubation time (d), surgical cost (ten thousand yuan), abdominal effusion, pulmonary infection, postoperative flatulence time (d), postoperative exhaust time (d), incision infection, intestinal obstruction. To comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of Pringle method and IVC flow limiting blockade in the implementation of non-restrictive fluid intake strategies.
Ways to reduce bias
- Complete random grouping: This study adopts the complete random grouping method; Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were assigned to group A and Group B in a 1:1 ratio with 110 cases in each group by random number table method. The results are hidden in an opaque sealed envelope, which is then stored by the clinical study designer (i.e., a random code sheet). The researcher opened the envelope on the morning of the operation to obtain the group of patients and informed the operating physician and anesthesiologist to intervene accordingly according to the study protocol.
- Baseline control of patients Group A (Pringle method + restricted fluid management + use of vasoactive drugs by anesthesiologists) : The means of use and anesthetic drugs in this group were all conventional technical means without special intervention, so it was the control group.
Group B (Pringle method +IVC flow limiting and blocking method + open fluid intake during operation; Observation group: Patients in this group did not use anesthesia related drugs to control CVP, so they should strictly communicate with the anesthesiologist, and achieve homogeneity in the use of vasoactive drugs and narcotic drugs.
In order to reduce the deviation: 1. During the implementation of the subject, the group concealization was strictly implemented, and the designer informed the operating physician and anesthesiologist of the patient intervention plan one day before the operation.
- Fluid intake 12 hours before surgery for all enrolled patients was strictly regulated according to preoperative ERAS.
- All enrolled patients were strictly defined for the use of vasoactive drugs during the operation to reduce the deviation of statistical results caused by the use of different vascular drugs 4. All enrolled patients were performed by the same surgeon and anesthesiologist 5.4 Definition of the end of the study (e.g., the last study subject completes the last follow-up) The end of the study was defined when all enrolled patients completed surgery and the last patient completed follow-up 5.5 Statistical Analysis 5.5.1 Sample size and calculation basis Clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy in the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery of Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital meeting the above inclusion criteria were collected. Intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative CVP control were used as the main observation indexes.
In this study, intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative CVP were respectively used to calculate the minimum sample size. According to previous observations, the mean difference of intraoperative blood loss between the two groups was about 28ml, the common standard deviation was conservatively estimated to be 55ml, the mean difference of intraoperative CVP between the two groups was about 2cmH2O, and the common standard deviation was conservatively estimated to be 1.5cmH2O. The Class I error α and class II error β of hypothesis test were set as 0.05, and the number of subjects in the two groups was 1:1. The PASS15.0 software was used for calculation, and the sample size of intraoperative blood loss was obtained as n=83 persons in each group, and the sample size of intraoperative CVP was obtained as n=13 persons in each group, and the larger value was adopted, that is, the sample size was 83 persons in each group. Assuming a 20% loss rate, the final sample size is 104 people per group, for a total of 208 people.
- Conditions
- Liver Tumor
- Being tested
- In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intake
- Keywords
- Liver cancer, Laparoscopic
- Medical subject headings
- Carcinoma, Hepatocellular, Liver Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intakeProcedure or surgery
The specific steps of IVC blocking were performed by the principal physician under laparoscopic operation: slightly incision of the posterior peritoneum on both sides of the inferior vena cava above the level of the renal vein. The "blood vessel blocking band" is passed behind the inferior vena cava on the left or right side of the inferior vena cava. According to the intraoperative situation, the blocking band (flow limiting blocking/incomplete blocking of subhepatic inferior vena cava) was tightened to control the bleeding from hepatic vein on the liver section. Patients in this group did not use vasoactive drugs/underuse means to control CVP, so they need to strictly communicate with the anesthesiologist, and take the fluid intake based on the physiological requirements and fluid loss of individual patients (cancel the restriction of fluid intake).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | Group A (Pringle method + restricted fluid management + use of vasoactive drugs by anesthesiologists) : The means of use and anesthetic drugs in this group were all conventional technical means without special intervention, so it was the control group. |
| Observation group | Experimental | Group B (Pringle method +IVC flow limiting and blocking method + open fluid intake during operation; Observation group: Patients in this group did not use anesthesia related drugs to control CVP, so they should strictly communicate with the anesthesiologist, and achieve homogeneity in the use of vasoactive drugs and narcotic drugs. Receives: Procedure: In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intake |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Intraoperative blood loss
The amount of intraoperative blood loss is an important index to evaluate surgical safety
Measured: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
Intraoperative central venous pressure
Central venous pressure is an important factor in the evaluation of blood loss after subhepatic inferior vena cava occlusion
Measured: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
Secondary outcomes (4)
Level of aminotransferase
An important indicator of liver function
Measured: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
level of Lactic acid
An important indicator of liver and kidney metabolic function
Measured: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
Blood Sugar level
An important indicator of liver synthesis
Measured: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
level of creatinine
An important indicator of kidney function
Measured: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted19 Sep 2024
- Study start15 Sep 2024
- Primary completion30 Jun 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion31 Mar 2026 (estimated)
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Liver TumorStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind
- Who is masked
- Participant, Care provider, Investigator
- Enrolment
- 220 participants (estimated)
Sponsor and investigators
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Yajin Chen, Study director, Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06594289
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- SYSKY-2024-462-02
- Status last verified
- Oct 2024
- First submitted
- 27 Aug 2024
- Last updated
- 22 Oct 2024
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Undecided: After the paper is published, you can contact us through the corresponding author's email address. We are willing to share the data results
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 22 Oct 2024. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Evaluation of the Safety and Effectiveness of Pringle Method Combined With IVC Flow Limiting and Blocking Method in Laparoscopic Hepatectomy Based on Non-restrictive Fluid Therapy Strategy
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT06594289
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- SYSKY-2024-462-02
- Conditions
- Liver Tumor
- Keywords
- Liver cancer, Laparoscopic
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Unknown status
- Enrolment
- 220 participants (estimated)
- Lead sponsor
- Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 15 Sep 2024 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 30 Jun 2025 (estimated)
- Study completion
- 31 Mar 2026 (estimated)
- First posted
- 19 Sep 2024 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The relevant data of 220 patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy in our hospital were collected. Based on randomization, blindness and inclusion and exclusion criteria, the patients were divided into group A (which included Pringle method + restricted fluid management + vasoactive drug use by anesthesiologists) and group B (which included: Pringle method +IVC flow limiting and blocking method, intraoperative fluid rehydration according to physiological requirements and expected loss, no or less vasoactive drugs used during the operation), and intraoperative and postoperative relevant indicators were compared between the two groups, such as; CVP value, fluctuation range, length of operation, time of liver amputation, total blood loss, amount of liver amputation, amount of blood transfusion, and amount of fluid perfusion. Internal environmental indicators: albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, γ-gt, total bilirubin, renal function, lactic acid, blood gas analysis (three times during the operation). Postoperative indexes: average length of stay and unplanned reoperation rate. While taking into account the safety, effectiveness and interpretability of statistical results, a new laparoscopic hepatectomy technique based on the optimized CLCVP process was constructed to control intraoperative bleeding and GDFT standardized and streamlined intervention strategy. This is not only an important innovation of the CLVCP concept, but also an important link to accelerate the implementation of laparoscopic liver resection technology in grassroots hospitals, and will significantly improve the quality of medical services, which can bring more accurate and efficient treatment programs to patients.
Detailed description
Overall design Research hypothesis: Based on the non-restrictive fluid management strategy (intraoperative fluid rehydration according to physiological requirements and expected loss, no or less use of vasoactive drugs during the operation) combined with Pringle method and IVC flow restriction blocking method, the method of blocking hepatic blood flow was applied to effectively control intraoperative bleeding. Reduce the degree of intraoperative anesthesiologist dependence, improve the intraoperative compatibility between surgeons and anesthesiologists, and optimize the traditional CLVCP process, so as to achieve the goal of accurate maintenance of patients' organs in functional surgery and more rapid and widespread promotion of laparoscopic liver resection technology.
Type of study: A prospective randomized controlled study will be used in this study 5.2 Research and design process 5.2.1 Study the specific implementation process A total of 220 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic partial hepatectomy were selected from our hospital. All patients and their families knowingly and voluntarily signed informed consent before enrollment. On the basis of randomization and inclusion and exclusion criteria, the patients were divided into group A (110 cases) (Pringle method + restricted fluid management + use of vasoactive drugs by anesthesiologists) and group B (110 cases) (Pringle method +IVC flow restriction blocking + open fluid intake during the operation, and no/less use of vasoactive drugs during the operation). Intraoperative and postoperative related indexes were compared between the two groups, such as; CVP value, duration, fluctuation range, length of operation, time of liver amputation, total blood loss, amount of liver amputation, amount of blood transfusion, amount of liquid perfusion, three blood gas analysis during the operation, blood glucose, and dosage of vasoactive drugs. 3 days after operation: albumin, alanine aminotransferase, aspartate aminotransferase, gamma-GT, total bilirubin, renal function, lactic acid and other related indexes. Postoperative hospital stay (d), tracheal intubation and extubation time (d), surgical cost (ten thousand yuan), abdominal effusion, pulmonary infection, postoperative flatulence time (d), postoperative exhaust time (d), incision infection, intestinal obstruction. To comprehensively evaluate the safety and efficacy of Pringle method and IVC flow limiting blockade in the implementation of non-restrictive fluid intake strategies.
Ways to reduce bias
- Complete random grouping: This study adopts the complete random grouping method; Patients meeting the inclusion criteria were assigned to group A and Group B in a 1:1 ratio with 110 cases in each group by random number table method. The results are hidden in an opaque sealed envelope, which is then stored by the clinical study designer (i.e., a random code sheet). The researcher opened the envelope on the morning of the operation to obtain the group of patients and informed the operating physician and anesthesiologist to intervene accordingly according to the study protocol.
- Baseline control of patients Group A (Pringle method + restricted fluid management + use of vasoactive drugs by anesthesiologists) : The means of use and anesthetic drugs in this group were all conventional technical means without special intervention, so it was the control group.
Group B (Pringle method +IVC flow limiting and blocking method + open fluid intake during operation; Observation group: Patients in this group did not use anesthesia related drugs to control CVP, so they should strictly communicate with the anesthesiologist, and achieve homogeneity in the use of vasoactive drugs and narcotic drugs.
In order to reduce the deviation: 1. During the implementation of the subject, the group concealization was strictly implemented, and the designer informed the operating physician and anesthesiologist of the patient intervention plan one day before the operation.
- Fluid intake 12 hours before surgery for all enrolled patients was strictly regulated according to preoperative ERAS.
- All enrolled patients were strictly defined for the use of vasoactive drugs during the operation to reduce the deviation of statistical results caused by the use of different vascular drugs 4. All enrolled patients were performed by the same surgeon and anesthesiologist 5.4 Definition of the end of the study (e.g., the last study subject completes the last follow-up) The end of the study was defined when all enrolled patients completed surgery and the last patient completed follow-up 5.5 Statistical Analysis 5.5.1 Sample size and calculation basis Clinical data of patients undergoing laparoscopic hepatectomy in the Department of Hepatobiliary Surgery of Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital meeting the above inclusion criteria were collected. Intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative CVP control were used as the main observation indexes.
In this study, intraoperative blood loss and intraoperative CVP were respectively used to calculate the minimum sample size. According to previous observations, the mean difference of intraoperative blood loss between the two groups was about 28ml, the common standard deviation was conservatively estimated to be 55ml, the mean difference of intraoperative CVP between the two groups was about 2cmH2O, and the common standard deviation was conservatively estimated to be 1.5cmH2O. The Class I error α and class II error β of hypothesis test were set as 0.05, and the number of subjects in the two groups was 1:1. The PASS15.0 software was used for calculation, and the sample size of intraoperative blood loss was obtained as n=83 persons in each group, and the sample size of intraoperative CVP was obtained as n=13 persons in each group, and the larger value was adopted, that is, the sample size was 83 persons in each group. Assuming a 20% loss rate, the final sample size is 104 people per group, for a total of 208 people.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Triple blind (participant, care provider, investigator)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Control group | No intervention | –Group A (Pringle method + restricted fluid management + use of vasoactive drugs by anesthesiologists) : The means of use and anesthetic drugs in this group were all conventional technical means without special intervention, so it was the control group. |
| Observation group | Experimental | Procedure: In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intakeGroup B (Pringle method +IVC flow limiting and blocking method + open fluid intake during operation; Observation group: Patients in this group did not use anesthesia related drugs to control CVP, so they should strictly communicate with the anesthesiologist, and achieve homogeneity in the use of vasoactive drugs and narcotic drugs. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 18 to 70 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Adult, Older adult
Key inclusion criteria (5 listed)
- Preoperative Child-Pugh classification of liver function Grade A and grade B;
- No contraindications for laparoscopic hepatectomy;
- Liver diseases include: primary liver cancer, hepatic hemangioma, intrahepatic bile duct calculus, intrahepatic bile duct cell carcinoma, etc.
- Patients voluntarily participate and sign informed consent;
- According to the Ban difficulty scoring system of laparoscopic hepatectomy, patients with difficulty score of 5 or more were included; Neoplasms near the hepatic portal; Extensive hepatectomy (3 hepatic segments). Patients aged 18-70 years (including 18-70 years)
Key exclusion criteria (13 listed)
- Poor liver reserve function, ICG retention rate > 15%;
- severe heart and lung diseases, unable to tolerate general anesthesia surgery;
- Previous history of liver surgery;
- More than medium amount of chest and abdominal fluid with clinical symptoms:
- hepatic encephalopathy;
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intakeThe specific steps of IVC blocking were performed by the principal physician under laparoscopic operation: slightly incision of the posterior peritoneum on both sides of the inferior vena cava above the level of the renal vein. The "blood vessel blocking band" is passed behind the inferior vena cava on the left or right side of the inferior vena cava. According to the intraoperative situation, the blocking band (flow limiting blocking/incomplete blocking of subhepatic inferior vena cava) was tightened to control the bleeding from hepatic vein on the liver section. Patients in this group did not use vasoactive drugs/underuse means to control CVP, so they need to strictly communicate with the anesthesiologist, and take the fluid intake based on the physiological requirements and fluid loss of individual patients (cancel the restriction of fluid intake). | Procedure or surgery | Observation group |
Primary outcome
Intraoperative blood loss
Time frame: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
The amount of intraoperative blood loss is an important index to evaluate surgical safety
Intraoperative central venous pressure
Time frame: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
Central venous pressure is an important factor in the evaluation of blood loss after subhepatic inferior vena cava occlusion
4 secondary outcomes
Level of aminotransferase
Time frame: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
level of Lactic acid
Time frame: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
Blood Sugar level
Time frame: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
level of creatinine
Time frame: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026
Results and safety
Results are not available in the source record.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 22 Oct 2024.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Undecided. After the paper is published, you can contact us through the corresponding author's email address. We are willing to share the data results
Related trials for Liver Tumor
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
RecruitingObservational study
Real-world Evaluation of the HistoSonics Edison System for Treatment of Liver Tumors Across Multidisciplinary Users (BOOMBOX: Master Study)
Liver Neoplasms, Primary Liver Cancer
Recruiting
The Vanguard Study: Testing a New Way to Screen for Cancer
Bladder Carcinoma, Breast Carcinoma
Not yet recruitingPhase 2
SAMe in Prevention of Oxaliplatin-associated Liver Injury
Colorectal Cancer, Liver Metastases
Active, not recruitingPhase 1
Prospective Exploratory Study of FAPi PET/CT With Histopathology Validation in Patients With Various Cancers
Bladder Carcinoma, Cervical Carcinoma
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Yajin Chen study director
Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing In laparoscopic hepatectomy, the subhepatic inferior vena cava was restricted and the patient was given non-restricted intraoperative fluid intake in people with Liver Tumor, run by Sun Yat-Sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University at 1 site in China.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 5 inclusion and 13 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: status not confirmed, as of the sponsor's last update on 22 Oct 2024. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in China. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
Results are not available in the source record.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
Contact Yajin Chen (13719006202, cyj0509@126.com), or a site near the patient. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Intraoperative blood loss (time frame: Up to approximately 20 months:September 2024 - May 2026). The study lists 2 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 22 Oct 2024.